Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    it was "tiny elites" that bankrolled britain at this time, this has always been the case, and was so in Industrialised Britain too, huge conglomerates like the East India company etc were the ones pulling vasts sums of money and or resources into the uk from , largely abroad. Liverpool saw the direct benfits of major slavers being based there, because of its docks, and it was their money that built the city we see today from humble low scale fishing beginnings.Banks were first introduced in Liverpool simply as a way of providing credit to the numerous slavery enterprises operating form the city. As I provided to you the article listing 20-30 grandiouse period buildings funded by contributions from Slavers, an the city showing its gratitude by naming many of its streets after them. The industrial revolution that followed without question was assited by the vast wealths and fortunes the slave trade had previously brought to Britain and specifically the shipping industry in Liverpool. Its almost cringworthy the level to you which you are trying to deny the massive influence slavery had on the british economy and in particular Liverpool at this time, unless you are a habitual slavery denier. and your attempts to suggest that because African slaves were not all unloaded at Liverpool , but instead sent to certain death abroad for profit by the British, this is somehow less morally repugnant? - frankly that's disturbing

    Ok, so we are getting somewhere. You finally admit slaves were never brought to Liverpool.

    Slavery was a private trade. Please explain how a trade which at its peak provided less than 5% of GDP to the entire british economy can seriously be called a major part of the British economy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    Ok, so we are getting somewhere. You finally admit slaves were never brought to Liverpool.

    Slavery was a private trade. Please explain how a trade which at its peak provided less than 5% of GDP to the entire british economy can seriously be called a major part of the British economy?
    slavery at its peak for the british was in the 16th century, so kindly provide the economic statistics that evidence your above claim. Then identify from all the other major industries Britain had at the time, the ones that slave labour was not used in. you will be lef with a insignificant amount of industry. Again you don't comprehend the simple fact that slavery propped up the british economy massively and in multiple ways. and then I laugh at the ignorance you demonstrate to suggest because not all the british slave ships were unloaded at Liverpool, this in someway exonerates the slaving industry. Laughable
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    slavery at its peak for the british was in the 16th century, so kindly provide the economic statistics that evidence your above claim. Then identify from all the other major industries Britain had at the time, the ones that slave labour was not used in. you will be lef with a insignificant amount of industry. Again you don't comprehend the simple fact that slavery propped up the british economy massively and in multiple ways. and then I laugh at the ignorance you demonstrate to suggest because not all the british slave ships were unloaded at Liverpool, this in someway exonerates the slaving industry. Laughable
    Whats a British slave ship? Slavery was a private enterprise. but, No slave ships were unloaded at Liverpool anyway.

    Why are you so personally attached to the idea that slavery was such a major part of British economy? Slavery NEVER propped up the British economy. At its peak it contributed less than 5% of GDP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    Whats a British slave ship? Slavery was a private enterprise. but, No slave ships were unloaded at Liverpool anyway.

    Why are you so personally attached to the idea that slavery was such a major part of British economy? Slavery NEVER propped up the British economy. At its peak it contributed less than 5% of GDP.
    this has become like arguing with a 5 year old, which im not intending to do anymore. I hope you stop bunking off history class, this a truly embarrassing level of ignorance you have displayed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    Whats a British slave ship? Slavery was a private enterprise. but, No slave ships were unloaded at Liverpool anyway.

    Why are you so personally attached to the idea that slavery was such a major part of British economy? Slavery NEVER propped up the British economy. At its peak it contributed less than 5% of GDP.
    this has become like arguing with a 5 year old, which im not intending to do anymore. I hope you stop bunking of history class. -- Ill leave you to your ignorance and with this quote -" Transatlantic Slave Trade. This Slave Trade was the richest part of Britain's trade in the 18th century. James Houston, who worked for a firm of 18th-century slave merchants, wrote, "What a glorious and advantageous trade this is... It is the hinge on which all the trade of this globe moves. ---- -----Between 1750 and 1780, about 70% of the government's total income came from taxes on goods from its colonies. The money made on the Transatlantic Slave Trade triangle was vast and poured into Britain and other European countries involved in slavery, changing their landscapes forever. In Britain, those who had made much of their wealth from the trade built fine mansions, established banks such as the Bank of England and funded new industries"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    this has become like arguing with a 5 year old, which im not intending to do anymore. I hope you stop bunking off history class, this a truly embarrassing level of ignorance you have displayed.

    White guilt s a form of oppression you know.

    When the blinkers finally come off on this issue ask yourself this: why has society and the education system led me to believe so many lies about british history?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    this has become like arguing with a 5 year old, which im not intending to do anymore. I hope you stop bunking of history class. -- Ill leave you to your ignorance and with this quote -" Transatlantic Slave Trade. This Slave Trade was the richest part of Britain's trade in the 18th century. James Houston, who worked for a firm of 18th-century slave merchants, wrote, "What a glorious and advantageous trade this is... It is the hinge on which all the trade of this globe moves. ---- -----Between 1750 and 1780, about 70% of the government's total income came from taxes on goods from its colonies. The money made on the Transatlantic Slave Trade triangle was vast and poured into Britain and other European countries involved in slavery, changing their landscapes forever. In Britain, those who had made much of their wealth from the trade built fine mansions, established banks such as the Bank of England and funded new industries"

    Tell me. Who really wrote that garbage in the latter part of that post?

    apparently. Slavery also invented the Internet! Lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Liverpool's wealth predominantly came from cotton, which was of course linked to the slave trade but was NOT the trading of slaves. How is that hard to understand?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theeggs)
    Tel me. Who really wrote that garbage in the latter part of that post?

    apparently. Slavery also invented the Internet! Lol
    please feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself, but ive said what was needed to say
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Can't we all just blame the Belgians???
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The British Empire was the biggest and most successful, and most "anti-colonialists" have tactical motivations, so from their perspective it may be the worst.

    In terms of lasting damage to humanity, it has to be the Spanish, who killed and enslaved tens of millions and had no real redeeming features.

    In terms of damage proportional to area controlled, it is probably the Germans, who started the world's first intentional genocide in their sparsely populated left over bit of the Scramble for Africa.

    In terms of sheer indifference to human life, it would be the Belgians (although they may argue it was their King personally), who ran the Congo like a gulag to extract rubber. The Spanish at least thought they were helping by spreading Christianity, and the Germans responding to what they regarded as a military attack, but the Belgian Empire was purely a slave camp with no pretence at moral justification at all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    are you having problems reading? sailors and upper class servants? you are totally deluded now. 90% of slaves carried on british ships ended up in the americas and west indies to work till their deaths on behalf of british industries. slaves weren't 'purchased' from Africa, they were collected by ships out of Liverpool, some were brought back to the uk to be coalated like commodities by the Liverpool slave trading organisations and others were shipped straight from Africa across the atlantic, but the whole process was organised out of the UK with Liverpool as the main staging post for the whole of Europe. And thats how Liverpool became a major british city- from the vast money shipping of slaves brought to Britain :rolleyes:
    Most of this is horribly wrong.

    - The first major player in the slave trade was Spain. Britain even went to war with the Spanish on numerous occasions over rights to trade slaves in Spain's Empire.

    - Slaves could not lawfully be held in the British Isles. Supposedly some were anyway; there wasn't exactly a surveillance state then as there is now. But it was a handful of personal servants at the most.

    - Liverpool was a major West coast port but hardly the only one.

    - Slavery and Empire are only tenuously connected. Slaves were not captured in colonial empires, they were purchased from native African principalities. Britain was still trying to stop Africans enslaving one another as late as the mid 20th century. While slaves were often taken for use in Empires, they could just as well have been taken to metropoles, and the Ottoman Empire for instance did exactly that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cosimakarateman)
    please feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself, but ive said what was needed to say
    Your sources are awful, if you are so educated abut this then couldn't you point people in the right direction? I don't think Britain was nearly as interested in the slave trade as other empires. Personally, I think the British patrolling the Atlantic stopping the slave trade was just a way of ****ting on other countries' economy as it didn't really benefit the Brits anyway.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 18, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.